Lost Cities - An Oldest City and a legend verified

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Don't get me wrong, I find this interesting. I just get kinda edgy when people start arguing what city is the oldest in the world... should that really matter? And in any case its impossible to find out.

And yes, carbon testing isn't really worth the effort. I've worked with lots of people who use it and its not a final step in testing, its a start. Because, as my old prof actually said, "a start with a small chance of inaccuracy is better than a start thats a shot in the dark anyday"

Also, this article was very interesting to me because one area of study i didn't focus on too much is the development of the Indus valley (compared to other areas that is). I guess thats maybe why I didn't find the article first

ANYhoo ... I'm playing a Diety game and its going okay ... my first war fell though but luckily i didn't lose any cities but now i'm in kind of a rut ... oh well...

Wish me luck, and keep searching for the truth!

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Ethelred]

Moderators:

I think this thread needs to be moved to the Off Topic area.

---------------------------------------
Now for my reply.

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
I have a phd in ancient history. Trust me, C14 testing is very inaccurate. If you test it on certain compounds that you know exactly how old they are, it can give you large ranges of dates. You can carbon test living animals and it'll tell you that they've been dead for thousands of years.

Unless you are a specialist in C14 testing then I doubt you know more than I do about C14 testing. Maybe if your Phd was in archeology. The problems with C14 testing are all well known. The only way you get a date of thousands of years for a living animal is if you pick organisms that got their carbon from old sources. Which would be a stupid thing to do unless your intention was to create a bogus error. Something that is popular with christian fundamentalists who cannot afford to accept the real accuracy of C14 testing when it is done correctly.

If I've learned one thing, its this. Don't ever use the word "oldest", because that changes rapidly.

You need to learn more things if you only know one. Jericho has been touted as the worlds oldest city for decades. That might change in the future and there is nothing wrong with that sort of change. I did say oldest KNOWN for a reason.

Carbon testing is only what people want it to be... it gives massive ranges of dates and people tend to make an average of what they think.

It doesn't give massive ranges unless incompetence is involved. A competent person should be able to select a good source of C14. Plant based sources are best. Land plant. Animals might get carbon from ocean or river based sources where ancient limestone can easily bias the test to make it look older.

Sadly, what often happens is "oh they say that city X dates from 6000BC, well our city dates from 6500BC!

Thats a reasonable range of error. Whats your problem with it?

HAHA!" weither it be for political, ethnic bias, or personal gain. I wrote many a paper onthis topic that it really starts to make me SICK how many scientists are out there to warp facts, not present them. And more importantly, how many just cannot say "I don't know".

*Sigh* okay now i'm on a rant ...

Well you got something right, you are on a rant. I have the sneaky suspicion that you are a Fundamentalist. Only they go around spreading the manure like this about C14 testing, which is in fact very accurate, at least if done by competent experienced people.

What I'll add lastly is something you might want to think about. A city isn't always stones put atop one another. There are cities far older than Jericho or the one in the article by thousands of years (apparently) but they can only be seen in areas of ground hundreds of feet down that's been burnt with fire from campfires, small stone arrangements and now near-petrified or rotten wood ... and those cities have been found thousands of miles away from the "cradle of civilization" and i've been to a few of them.

There are no cities known to be older than Jericho unless its that one just found in your link. If what you say is true than C14 testing of those fires would show it.However a collection of huts and fire pits does not a city make. A city has organization of some kind or its really just a conglomeration of housing. Kind of like a housing tract without the plumbing.

SO if you want to talk oldest walled city then thats different, but lets stop arguing what city is the oldest in the world because its no city that has a name, and its none that have been mentioned here.

I am not stopping you from mentioning it. A search of the web for oldest city comes up as Damascus. Oldest habitation however would be considerably older. The reason for mentioning oldest walled city is because that makes the habitation more than just a trading post or village. It means the inhabitants were intent on keeping the place theirs and were willing to expend a considerable amount of time as a group to do so. That entails a level of sophistication that is well beyond a casual village. In the case of the article the city has a layout that shows planning again unlike a casual village. Jericho doesn't have that but it does have the wall.


I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone does find a city older than Jericho but so far no one, including you, has any evidence to support that. If you really have seen such a place and the fire pits what the heck is stopping you from getting them C14 tested? Showing a new city is that old would be good for your reputation. Of course it could be that it wasn't really a city and you are engaging in hyperbole.

[Ethelred]

Ethelred : at the site mentioned below it says that Damascus was founded in 3 BC and not 6000 yrs ago. or are the Syrians understating their heritage .

http://whc.unesco.org/sites/20.htm

It says "Founded in the 3rd millenium B.C. " Your math is off by at least 3000 years. It could be off by considerably more since the third millenium lasted a thousand years and they weren't exactly particular on that page about even whether it was early or late in the third millenium. That was a Unesco site at that and not a Syrian site like you implied.

This leads to the question as to which is the oldest living city in the world i.e one where people still live i.e a still which still functions ?

My vote is for Benares (or Varanasi or Kashi) ~(atleast) 6 BC

http://www.ttflinfo.com/tours/varanasi.htm

Its still Damascus. 6BC is nothing. Rome was founded centuries before that and its a youngster in comparison to Damascus or even Athens. You gotta work on your math.

[Ethelred]

Stuff like Atlantis, as reported by Plato is supposed to have disappeared 9,000 years ago at the time of one of the water pulses, is now thought to have a grain of truth in it.

Plato didn't report it. He wrote an UNFINISHED story claiming he heard someone else tell a story about it. That is the ONLY source about Atlantis there is unless you consider Edgar Cayce, The Sleeping Fraud(tm), a source of information rather than a talented con-artist or perhaps he was simply self-deluded. Based on the bad medical help he gave people I would guess con-artist.

True, there are certainly places where people once lived that are now underwater. However cities and large habitations did spring up in quite a few places around the time the Ice Age ended. Not really surprising since the improved weather combined well with the advances in agriculture to generate a population boom. Just don't expect anyone to ever find something much more advanced than this city that was in the article. That requires extensive trade networks, and advanced organization as well as a large population.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

I don't want to waste time arguing with you Ethelred but I have a masters in archaeology, I'm not a christian fundamentalist, i've worked with c14 testing many times and did great research on it and worked with experts who know what to look for and where, and a city IS more than just fires and huts ... its an idea of a center of a community or civilization and there are far far older ones that jericho out there.

And when i said "oh they say that city X dates from 6000BC, well our city dates from 6500BC!" what i mean to say is people have this inclination to discover something that is older or better or more significant than everything else... otherwise they think it would a waste of time, which is where bias comes in, and forced human inaccuracies (christian fundamentalists fit in this category just as bad as some scientists) which is really a sad case because they warp otherwise useful information to give themselves a better name or whatever they're after.

And as for "city" its a very loose term.. The oldest stone city found is a good one. The oldest city in an area maybe. But people see different things in different ways. There HAS been c14 tests and more done on such sites throughout europe and africa and pretty much all around the world. If you want to take a c14 reading you can range these cities or 'communities' if you'd rather me word it that way, up to 20000BC. Civilization wasn't something that started in jericho or damascus or in the indus valley, the idea of community started far earlier and a community is essentially a small civilization. These sites are permament settlements.. we can draw out locations of dozens of houses, firepits, garbage lots and in some of the most interesting areas even places of worship.

So I just gotta ask, how do you know more about C14 testing than I do? Message me .. Lets not bother flooding this post because I don't think we're really talking about this sunken city anymore...

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
I don't want to waste time arguing with you Ethelred but I have a masters in archaeology, I'm not a christian fundamentalist, i've worked with c14 testing many times and did great research on it and worked with experts who know what to look for and where, and a city IS more than just fires and huts ... its an idea of a center of a community or civilization and there are far far older ones that jericho out there

Then you should know that you exagerated rather a lot. I don't care what you have a degree in if you going to talk about living things having C14 dates of thousands of years, it implies an excessive dislike for C14 testing which implies an ax is being ground.

And when i said "oh they say that city X dates from 6000BC, well our city dates from 6500BC!" what i mean to say is people have this inclination to discover something that is older or better or more significant than everything else...

Of course. Egos are involved. My point was that you were harping on C14 testing to great excess.

And as for "city" its a very loose term.. The oldest stone city found is a good one. The oldest city in an area maybe. But people see different things in different ways. There HAS been c14 tests and more done on such sites throughout europe and africa and pretty much all around the world. If you want to take a c14 reading you can range these cities or 'communities' if you'd rather me word it that way, up to 20000BC.

Yes there are such places but they are more of jumble of housing than a city.

Civilization wasn't something that started in jericho or damascus or in the indus valley, the idea of community started far earlier and a community is essentially a small civilization.

Communities are often family based. That is not exactly a city.

These sites are permament settlements.. we can draw out locations of dozens of houses, firepits, garbage lots and in some of the most interesting areas even places of worship.

Sure but that is not a city. That is why there is the emphasis with Jericho on its being walled.

So I just gotta ask, how do you know more about C14 testing than I do? Message me .. Lets not bother flooding this post because I don't think we're really talking about this sunken city anymore...

Cheers
~Thadalex

Not interested in discussing this in email. Here will do nicely since it started here. You really should have put this in the Off Topic forum. I am fairly sure a mod will move it there sooner or later.

Besides reading on Anthropology and Archeology for forty years because I find it interesting you mean? Mainly from looking up tons of stuff arguing with people that have distorted ideas about C14 testing. Its pretty accurate but it sure isn't accurate enough to say if two different sites were exactly contemporary. A five percent error range just isn't good enough for that plus wood can be quite a bit older than the site is depending on the species of plant. C14 testing combined with tree ring analyisis can narrow the range a bit. There are also cases of contamination. Coal, limestone, or marble will do quite nicely for messing up dates.

[Prince]

Hmpf, well in *my* game the Harrapans didn't last long, being the barbarian tribe they were

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Then you should know that you exagerated rather a lot. I don't care what you have a degree in if you going to talk about living things having C14 dates of thousands of years, it implies an excessive dislike for C14 testing which implies an ax is being ground.

An ax is being ground? I have nothing against C14 tests so long as you don't take a test and say 'hey hey guess what?' because 90% of the time it'll turn out wrong. I have a problem with people who manipulate C14 tests. I too have a problem with people who totally say 'screw it' to carbon tests, but I have just as much against people who think its the be all, end all. It can be fixed and warped like most things. I wouldn't put so much faith in it if I were you.

Of course. Egos are involved. My point was that you were harping on C14 testing to great excess.

I don't think I was ... I was harping more on the people who use it.

Yes there are such places but they are more of jumble of housing than a city.

City
1 a : an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village.
So what if there are no towns or villages? Where do we start saying what is a city and what isn't? Its an entirely different argument. What could be considered a city in 15000BC could be considered a town or village 10 thousand years later.

Communities are often family based. That is not exactly a city.

Community
1 : a unified body of individuals: as a : STATE, COMMONWEALTH b : the people with common interests living in a particular area; broadly : the area itself c : an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location d : a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together

I don't see anything about family. I see a lot more evidence that a community is closer to a city than a family.

Sure but that is not a city. That is why there is the emphasis with Jericho on its being walled.

How on earth does a wall make a city? I would think you'd believe a city to be a focal point of community, not just bricks....

Not interested in discussing this in email. Here will do nicely since it started here. You really should have put this in the Off Topic forum. I am fairly sure a mod will move it there sooner or later.

First of all, I didn't start this thread so its not up to me to put it off topic. Secondly we can talk here if you want, i have nothing to hide.

Besides reading on Anthropology and Archeology for forty years because I find it interesting you mean? Mainly from looking up tons of stuff arguing with people that have distorted ideas about C14 testing. Its pretty accurate but it sure isn't accurate enough to say if two different sites were exactly contemporary. A five percent error range just isn't good enough for that plus wood can be quite a bit older than the site is depending on the species of plant. C14 testing combined with tree ring analyisis can narrow the range a bit. There are also cases of contamination. Coal, limestone, or marble will do quite nicely for messing up dates.

Age doesn't make you wise. You could read millions of pages of pure drivel for a hundred years and never learn anything of value that you would reading good information in an evening.

Also, I think you're putting too much faith in C14 testing because I have no dillusions about it, i have no distorted idea ... I have used it and have seen others use it many times. I wouldn't say I'm an expert at using it but I've seen people who work with it every day of their lives run the processes. I've done more than read about it...

Awaiting your reply
~Thadalex

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Anyway, I have to get going ... i need food then i hafta get to the drug store before playing some civ3 tonight and get my mind off these threads.

Its been fun I hope you aren't taking anything personally here ... I find this a stimulating conversation

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Ethelred]

An ax is being ground? I have nothing against C14 tests so long as you don't take a test and say 'hey hey guess what?' because 90% of the time it'll turn out wrong.

Ax ground is implied but not necissarily happening. If it was wrong 90% of the time no one would be bothering with it. Perhaps you are thinking it wrong if someone hasn't taken the range of error into account. Its never exactly oh say 6500 years BC. since there is always an error range even with the best possible sample.

I wouldn't put so much faith in it if I were you.

I am not going on faith. Its a very usefull test and when properly done the actual date will be within the range of error of that shown by C14 testing. I am not expecting anyone to get it down to April 4, 4005 BC.

I don't think I was ... I was harping more on the people who use it.

Combined with the remark about living specimens it came up as harping to me. On its own that would be different. I sure don't expect anyone to be sure about which city is older if one is C14 dated to 6000 BC and the other to 6500 BC since the error ranges would overlap. If someone claims its absolute they aren't someone I want to trust on other things either.

So what if there are no towns or villages? Where do we start saying what is a city and what isn't? Its an entirely different argument. What could be considered a city in 15000BC could be considered a town or village 10 thousand years later.

I agree that its fuzzy. As I said that is why the wall has some significance. It took commnunity action. Building a mass of jumbled houses doesn't. I think that community planning is a significant diference between a community and a city. Even a small town is still a city.

I don't see anything about family. I see a lot more evidence that a community is closer to a city than a family.

Early communities were undoubtedly often family oriented with everyone not only knowing everyone else but being mostly members of a few families or at least clans. That sure makes a community but I don't see that as inherently being a city.

First of all, I didn't start this thread so its not up to me to put it off topic. Secondly we can talk here if you want, i have nothing to hide.

I didn't say you had anything to hide. I just said I didn't want to discuss it in email. That limits the conversation to just two whereas others can kibbitz or even join in here. For some reason I was thinking it was you that started the thread. Still it should have been in the other forum. Not your fault.

Age doesn't make you wise. You could read millions of pages of pure drivel for a hundred years and never learn anything of value that you would reading good information in an evening.

Neither does a degree make you wise. You asked a question and I answered it. I didn't claim wisdom only knowledge. My mother had a degree in anthropology but she was never as good as I am at thinking about it from a theoretical point of view. What she did know better was details like which bone goes where and how to check things like wear on teath.

I try not to read pure drivel. Most of the time anyway. If I want drivel there are plenty of internet sites for that. There is a funny site about hydroplate theory for instance. Its not supposed to be funny of course. Its just funny considering it was done by an engineer and he never checked out what the numbers would entail. Naughty thing for an engineer to not run the numbers.

Also, I think you're putting too much faith in C14 testing because I have no dillusions about it, i have no distorted idea ...

You definitly have one delusion about it. You think I have a distorted concept of it. I understand it both theoreticaly and the field problems. True I haven't dealt with them myself but that is not a detrement to understanding. It can be but not in my case as I have looked in to both the problems and the technology. I knew the theory long ago.

I have some nice photos of some of the trees that have been used to calibrate C14 testing. Does that count for anything? Don't have photos of the Methusala tree because the Forrest Service keeps it secret which one it is. Supposedly it was somewhere else than where I was.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

I am not going on faith. Its a very usefull test and when properly done the actual date will be within the range of error of that shown by C14 testing. I am not expecting anyone to get it down to April 4, 4005 BC.

I never said you exptected that. And I'll rephrase faith to trust, is that better? I know we'll never agree on the accuracy of C14 testing. I've seen it in action and I've been taught about it from many superiors in my life and I know what I know. That taking a C14 test is better than taking a shot in the dark, but usually after dating sites through C14 we find other clues as to dates and significance that alter the C14 dates significantly. I never ever said C14 testing should be thrown out the door, all I said was it needs to be used as a primary research measure through a non-bias professional to give a gun-shot start. Thats all.

Combined with the remark about living specimens it came up as harping to me. On its own that would be different. I sure don't expect anyone to be sure about which city is older if one is C14 dated to 6000 BC and the other to 6500 BC since the error ranges would overlap. If someone claims its absolute they aren't someone I want to trust on other things either.

I think you got the wrong impression of my 6000/6500 BC statement. What I meant to say was how some scientists aim only to find something that is older and better and more significant than those before him. So if he cannot find any clues about a city, he'll carbon date it to around 6000 BC, the same time as another city in the area. But, oh god! That makes his discovery less important so he drops a few tests and warps the mean average (or median if he's a real dumbass) to say 6500 just to make it look better on him. I know that happens because many researchers have been nailed on it. Again, its bias and for personal gain. And it puts massive roadblocks up in the search for the truth.

I agree that its fuzzy. As I said that is why the wall has some significance. It took commnunity action. Building a mass of jumbled houses doesn't. I think that community planning is a significant diference between a community and a city. Even a small town is still a city.

I agree that jericho is a wonderful site to see. I've been there on personal and school business before and it is an impressive site. I agree strongly that it took community action but again, yes its all fuzzy what makes a city. Perhaps what you call a jumble of houses was a significant step towards that walled city, as one might well expect if it happened a millenia before. The evolution of 'city' and civilization is long with many steps which makes it impossible to really pin point what the world's oldest city is. I think going back a thousand years or more before jericho it took just as much effort to start that jumble of houses than it did to make the wall. Maybe not physical labour, but in the brining together of people for a purpose. In my personal opinion, a topic i wrote about much in my final years at school, the first cities started to emerge during the ice age. Where some forms of early men became cannibalistic, dug out in caves and warred with one another for food, others came together in communities and more still came togther and communities started to live together because they rationalized that together they could survive better than alone. I don't want to copy-and-paste entire essays here but in my mind, those were the first semblances of cities ... people coming together and living together in a community and building to help the greater, not the individual. I did extensive research in the south of France on such communities which is where my thesis came from. If you disagree thats your opinion... I've had people go againt me before but I've had many many by my side and thats what makes me happy. Questions.

Early communities were undoubtedly often family oriented with everyone not only knowing everyone else but being mostly members of a few families or at least clans. That sure makes a community but I don't see that as inherently being a city.

What makes it a city is when they establish a stable living place. When they work together (as in the wall) to establish a focal point for their community.

I didn't say you had anything to hide. I just said I didn't want to discuss it in email. That limits the conversation to just two whereas others can kibbitz or even join in here. For some reason I was thinking it was you that started the thread. Still it should have been in the other forum. Not your fault.

The only thing is, I think people start looking at our massive posts and don't bother oh well, nothing is in vain... And its okay, I think they thread should have been in off-topic too.

Neither does a degree make you wise. You asked a question and I answered it. I didn't claim wisdom only knowledge.

It doesn't make me wise but it puts me in an informed position as well. And I don't think I ever asked a question ... I think you just saw that I disagreed with C14 testing and it all built from that.

I try not to read pure drivel. Most of the time anyway. If I want drivel there are plenty of internet sites for that. There is a funny site about hydroplate theory for instance. Its not supposed to be funny of course. Its just funny considering it was done by an engineer and he never checked out what the numbers would entail. Naughty thing for an engineer to not run the numbers.

Is this the infamous Walt Brown sites? If not, by whom is it written?

You definitly have one delusion about it. You think I have a distorted concept of it. I understand it both theoreticaly and the field problems. True I haven't dealt with them myself but that is not a detrement to understanding. It can be but not in my case as I have looked in to both the problems and the technology. I knew the theory long ago.

I'm tired of replying to this over and over again. I'm positive in what I've learned and read many a time over. I've used it and seen it being done first hand. I know when its useful and not, that its surely not the end-all, be all of research but I'm sure you'd agree with that too... never take one answer. What else can I say?

Cheers
~Thadalex


Edit: PS, I didn't reply to your comment about your mother ... how could I ? Although I don't understand why you put that in ....

[Ethelred]

That taking a C14 test is better than taking a shot in the dark, but usually after dating sites through C14 we find other clues as to dates and significance that alter the C14 dates significantly.

Ever stop to think that the other clues while accurate for a relative date are using a somewhat erroneious timeline? If the standard timeline has errors than the results from another method of the dating such as C14 is going to look wrong even when it isn't.

I think you got the wrong impression of my 6000/6500 BC statement. What I meant to say was how some scientists aim only to find something that is older and better and more significant than those before him.

I told you exactly what I was thinking. I will reiterate since once appears not to have been good enough. That statement combined with the other remarks you made sounded very much like an attempt to make C14 testing look a waste of time. You have now backed down on that just a bit. Now its not a waste a time its something that you consider to be maybe a little bit of help, but not much more. For historical timeframes its often not going to be accurate enough to help much since the sometimes even the specific year or at least decade might be important in deciding what started what.

The evolution of 'city' and civilization is long with many steps which makes it impossible to really pin point what the world's oldest city is. I think going back a thousand years or more before jericho it took just as much effort to start that jumble of houses than it did to make the wall.

Each house however was an individual effort. There was likely help from others in building houses but its was still just one more house without a plan. As I said the wall however shows a lot more than that as does the grid of streets in the Indian site.

In my personal opinion, a topic i wrote about much in my final years at school, the first cities started to emerge during the ice age.

Larger communities might well have started during the very end of the Ice Age but it seems likely to me that it was the change in climate that was the cause and not the Ice Age. The Ice Age lasted for a very long time. Homo Sapiens didn't even exist when the Ice Age started. I find it far more likely that it was the ending of the Ice Age coupled with the beginning of agriculture and the resulting population boom that led to the developement of cities as opposed to villages.

What makes it a city is when they establish a stable living place.

By that standard a farming village in France becomes a city simply because it was there long enough to form a mound.

It doesn't make me wise but it puts me in an informed position as well. And I don't think I ever asked a question ...

You need to remember what you write.

So I just gotta ask, how do you know more about C14 testing than I do?

That is the question I was responding to.

Is this the infamous Walt Brown sites? If not, by whom is it written?

Who else? Brown's "theories" are actualy funny. He steams and boils Noah to say nothing of the tsunamis that would be generated by collapsing mega caverns.

I'm tired of replying to this over and over again.

Tough. I didn't twist your arm.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

I think you forgot to reply to something I said..

I'm positive in what I've learned and read many a time over. I've used it and seen it being done first hand. I know when its useful and not, that its surely not the end-all, be all of research but I'm sure you'd agree with that too... never take one answer. What else can I say?

And another thing ... I'm not backing down from anything. Way back, READ what I said, I said it was innacurate, yes .. you can't take it 100%. I said its a starting ground and thats all and I stick by it. I also stick by the real point of my original message, that C14 testing is also increadibly subject to human error.. or more importantly human tampering. You're right about knowing where to look, i never argued that. Its people who find where not to look to fake things. Am I striking a nerve here?

And no you didn't twist my arm. I want to reply. Am I twisting yours?

Regardless I'm working today so I don't have to rip up your last message quote-by-quote.

Later
Cheers
~Thadalex

[Ethelred]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
I think you forgot to reply to something I said..

No.

I'm positive in what I've learned and read many a time over. I've used it and seen it being done first hand. I know when its useful and not, that its surely not the end-all, be all of research but I'm sure you'd agree with that too... never take one answer. What else can I say?

There was nothing new to comment on there.

Only one deplorable episode when 'hawks' seized control and exterminated every single evil green Aztec after they burned down Byblos. But they were nasty.
And another thing ... I'm not backing down from anything.

You did back down. Perhaps it was just badly stated initially.

Way back, READ what I said, I said it was innacurate, yes .. you can't take it 100%. I said its a starting ground and thats all and I stick by it.

You said that later. Not initialy.

I also stick by the real point of my original message, that C14 testing is also increadibly subject to human error.. or more importantly human tampering.

That wasn't in your original message. This like the question you said you didn't ask but actually did.

You're right about knowing where to look, i never argued that. Its people who find where not to look to fake things. Am I striking a nerve here?

You should quit smashing your own humerous. Then it might not hurt so much. Perhaps the pain is the cause of your intial rant.

Regardless I'm working today so I don't have to rip up your last message quote-by-quote.

Later
Cheers
~Thadalex

You need to look at your own messages as well as mine.

You original statement is not what you are now saying it was.

I have a phd in ancient history. Trust me, C14 testing is very inaccurate. If you test it on certain compounds that you know exactly how old they are, it can give you large ranges of dates. You can carbon test living animals and it'll tell you that they've been dead for thousands of years.

If I've learned one thing, its this. Don't ever use the word "oldest", because that changes rapidly. Especially within cultural borders ... people in Israel will tell you one thing and people from the lands around ancient mesopotamia will tell you another. Carbon testing is only what people want it to be... it gives massive ranges of dates and people tend to make an average of what they think. Sadly, what often happens is "oh they say that city X dates from 6000BC, well our city dates from 6500BC! HAHA!" weither it be for political, ethnic bias, or personal gain. I wrote many a paper onthis topic that it really starts to make me SICK how many scientists are out there to warp facts, not present them. And more importantly, how many just cannot say "I don't know".

*Sigh* okay now i'm on a rant ...

By far the most accurate statement in all that was that you were ranting. I get the impression that you are having a major conflict with a collegue and that C14 testing was involved on his part.

Why would anyone C14 test a living animal except to show a well known limit to C14 testing so they can pretend that is less usefull than it is? That one statement is the key there and is the reason I thought I smelled a Creationist at work.

You most certainly have backed down from that rant. Why you went over the top like that only you can say. I only went by your actual words. I am getting the impression now that you are irked at one or two specific individuals that you believe, possibly with good cause, are bad scientists. I am not them and I was and remain fully cognizant of the limit of C14 testing. I didn't need your rant to become aware of those limits despite your continued efforts to misconstue my position on C14 testing. I don't have have this faith in you seem to think I have. Its tool and a good one. Of course it can be abused just like all research tools.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Okay lets look at my original message

Carbon testing is only what people want it to be... it gives massive ranges of dates and people tend to make an average of what they think.

Does that not mean I originally said that I think carbon testing is riddled with human error? I added also

And yes, carbon testing isn't really worth the effort. I've worked with lots of people who use it and its not a final step in testing, its a start. Because, as my old prof actually said, "a start with a small chance of inaccuracy is better than a start thats a shot in the dark anyday"

I said that initally too ... it was one message later but before you started to disagree with me. Don't you worry, I know what I know and my mind won't be changed, especially not on a forum in a Gaming website. I've been put to the test before by far worse things than here. If i didn't put something out there right away it was because i didn't need to.

I get the impression that you are having a major conflict with a collegue and that C14 testing was involved on his part.

Wrong. Nothing else to say.

I am getting the impression now that you are irked at one or two specific individuals that you believe, possibly with good cause, are bad scientists.

I am, but that has nothing to do with the inaccuracy of C14 testing.

There was nothing new to comment on there.

Okay. How about this then. I worked with it because i had to. I know first hand about C14 testing. I've seen it fail and I've seen how people manipulate it to further worsen its abilities, and I've seen it with my own eyes. You can believe whatever you've read, but I know what its good for and when its useless.

~Thadalex